In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants (1913)

Page scan 000160 from In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants

Record Details:

Title:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants
Date:
1913
Publisher:
New York, Appeal Printing Co.
Volume:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants : record volume 1
Leaf #:
000160
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
Format:
Periodicals
Contributor:
The Museum of Modern Art Library, New York
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
These seven volumes contain the testimonies and supporting documents from the U.S. District Court's antitrust lawsuit against the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC). Formed in 1908, the MPPC (sometimes referred to asœ"the Edison Trust" or just "the Trust") sought to control the American film industry through pooling patents and demanding that producers and exhibitors acquire licenses to those patents. Independent producers and exhibitors, who refused to license the patents, argued that the MPPC was an unlawful monopoly. In 1912 and 1913, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard testimonies from both MPPC members, such as Siegmund Lubin, and "Independents" who later became Hollywood moguls, such as William Fox. Ultimately, in 1915, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which found the MPPC in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and spelled the end for the already weakening MPPC. -- Eric Hoyt, 2012
Date Added:
September 12, 2024
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

138 Harry N. Marvin, Direct Examination. assigned to the Motion Picture Patents Company was a camera patent issued to Herman Casler, and numbered 629,063, dated July 18, 1899. Q. Was that Biograph camera a friction feed camera? A. It was. Q. The same exhibit (55), also states (supra, p. 133) : "For over a year, the American Mutoscope & Biograph Company has manufactured many hundred of thousands of feet of moving picture film with its Biograph camera." This statement refers to the same camera brought out under the Casler patent which you have just named? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Marvin, I show you a statement or account printed in the Moving Picture World, Vol. 1, page 608, in the issue of November 23rd, 1907, entitled "The Pittsburg Conference," which was evidently a conference of film manufacturers and film renters. Will you look over that account? Mr. Caldwell: I object to the characterization of the article just shown the witness, that is, that it was evidently a meeting of the film manufacturers and renters in the statement made to the witness. The Witness: Do you want me to read it carefully, Mr. Grosvenor? Mr. Grosvenor: Yes, read it over please. Q. Have you read it? A. Yes, I have read it. Q. Now, were you present at that meeting? A. I was present during a part of the time at a meeting of some manufacturers and some importers but not at the meeting of the renters. Q. The manufacturers and importers had a meeting at the same time and same place but separately from the meeting of the renters? A. Yes. Q. Were these different manufacturers and importers named in this article represented there? A. I don't remember now who was there. Q. Were there representatives of the Edison Company there? A. Yes. Q. And of your company, you and Mr. Kennedy represented your company? A. Yes.